Obama's Re-election: A Mandate for Clean Energy?

With President Obama’s victory tonight, the renewable energy industry keeps an important ally in the White House. The win comes at a time when energy is rising in national importance. Given the extent to which the opposition made renewable energy an issue, I think the President’s win gives him a mandate to make clean energy a key part of the agenda for his second term. Now is the time to rally industry around a comprehensive plan to make our nation’s energy supply more secure, clean and affordable.

Over the last four years, our nation’s energy situation has changed for the better in two important ways:

Wind and solar have proven they can play a significant role in mainstream energy markets as an affordable source of clean electricity. That’s thanks in part to President Obama’s leadership on the ARRA stimulus programs that bridged the industry through the global financial crisis.

The boom in U.S. shale gas production has fundamentally altered our domestic energy options, edging out coal as the fossil fuel of choice.

These developments open new doors in terms of how we think about our energy future. With abundant and cheap solar, wind, and natural gas we can effectively have it all—a secure and stable mix of domestically-sourced clean energy at no additional cost over the status quo.

But there are pitfalls in our new found abundance as well. If we’re not careful we could end up overly dependent on gas, leaving us exposed to future price shocks. Leadership is required to define our national energy goals and keep the country on the right path.

The attacks during the campaign on solar and renewables--and climate change for that matter--were as fierce and they were well-funded. Despite those attacks, public opinion about renewables proved to be resilient. Solar and wind remain the top two most positively viewed energy sources with bipartisan favorability ratings in excess of 80%. Americans clearly understand the benefit of renewables and I think the President can rightfully claim a mandate to pursue a clean energy agenda.

The solar industry and SEIA stand ready to do our part. We’re continuing to drive out cost, accelerating solar’s transition to competitive markets and reduced dependency on government incentives. What we need in return is a stable policy environment that enables our industry to plan with confidence and ensures the flow of capital to good projects and companies.

Congratulations President Obama on your win today. Here’s to four more years of making renewable energy part of our broader energy mix!

I'm CEO of Recurrent Energy, a leading developer of solar projects for utilities and large energy customers. Recurrent Energy develops, builds, finances, and operates solar power projects--marketing clean electricity at competitive rates via Power Purchase Agreements or feed-in tariffs in North America, Europe, and emerging markets worldwide. Recurrent Energy is a US subsidiary of Sharp ...

Here is the text of an article that I found that demonstrates some of the unintended consequences of the new energy efficient revolution. I recieved permission from the author to post it here. I thought it had value here, if only to give pause to those who think the green energy "revolution" has brought only good things. Yet again, a government mandate puts development in such a tailspin that diminishing returns set in while costs excalate along the same same curve and capital is spent on a nonsensical quest to fulfill the mandate. Quality inevitably goes down.

Now, apply this incident to the whole of the economy and stagnation and economic doldrums set in permanently because real innovation is squeezed out and costs associated with the mandate cannot be contained and are delivered as bad product quality.

Many folks never stop to think about the impact that government mandates have on every single facet of their daily lives. Take just one example, and that is the interminable string of decrees on the part of the governmental-environmental-green complex and the ensuing repercussions on the lives of individuals.

This interesting article on Epinions discusses the impact of federal energy efficiency standards for washing machines, including (1) the myths of energy savings (2) the long-term, negative environmental impacts of the high-efficiency machines, and (3) the cost to consumers of the government’s high-efficiency, short-lived washers. The writer notes:

Too many large appliance products are now being engineered to meet priorities that do not include a reasonable interval between repairs and a service life commensurate with their initial cost.

…All high efficiency, high-speed spin washers (both top and front-load) invariably possess a motherboard and a host of electronic parts, and according to those who repair them for a living, washers crammed with multiple electronic sensors, touchpads, digital displays, and miniaturized circuit boards tend to need more frequent repair – i.e. – replacement. They must be kept on an electrical circuit with functioning surge protection, because their vulnerable and expensive solid-state components can easily degrade or burn out with electrical power surges.

The writer points out that the federal government’s 2007 Energy Star standards have, for the most part, eliminated the traditional design for washing machines because those machines cannot obtain the government’s certifications, unlike the newer devices that manufacturers have turned out to specifically meet federal requirements.

I never bought into the high-efficiency (HE) concept, and in fact I have always despised the newfangled front-loader design. I was right when I assumed the opinion that those atrocities were nothing more than an environmental stunt and marketing scam, backed by the force of politics and special interests. Consumers have been sucked into buying these things because of their keen looks and pretty colors. Almost everyone I know has a front-loading machine.

Until November 2009, I still had my mother's old machines that were 20-ish years old, and they worked great, for years, before they both began to slowly poop out. When the dryer ceased to dry in one cycle, and the agitator on my washing machine began to puncture numerous holes in my clothes, it was time to get new appliances. I bought a Kenmore HE washer and dryer combo, on Black Friday at Sears, at half-price. I did not seek, or want, HE appliances. But I did desire a washer without an agitator, and mostly because of my agonizing two-year battle with my old washer to keep my clothes free of holes. I was planted firmly in the anti-agitator camp. So I wanted an agitator-free top loader, but since those models were all HE, I walked away with the purchase of a new, top-loading HE washer and matching dryer. I should have listened to the appliance salesman at Sears who told me, "You really shouldn’t blame the agitator." In retrospect, it is clear that I blew it on this purchase. And that agitates the heck out of me.

This inefficient, high-efficiency thing has done nothing but break down since I bought it. It once ate, and I mean shredded to bits, an entire blanket, causing the washer to jam up, and the dang water could not empty out of the washer. Service call. The water sat there for two days and stunk up the basement after I gave up on bailing it out. The appliance repairman told me that high-efficiency washers tend to eat delicate stuff because of the high spin speed. Also, I was told, "Oh, you can't wash rugs. These things spin too fast and the weight of rugs will break the drums and other parts. You need to take your rugs to the laundromat."I had been washing my rugs due to hosting a perpetual dog hair festival in my house, and I'll be darn if I will own a washing machine that insists that I go to a laundromat to wash them.

So this piece of junk breaks all the time (I have the 5-year, extended warranty), it eats delicate things, it can't spin rugs, you have to use special HE soap, and it has so many computer boards and electronic parts that it breaks down more quickly than you can say, "my computer is hour-glassing again..." Also, I've had to spin and re-spin clothes many times because the washer doesn't spin the clothes dry enough, thus leading to throwing eighty pounds of water-logged clothes in the dryer, therefore sucking up even more energy from dryer use and repeating drying cycles, and potentially breaking my dryer from the excess weight load. I’ve set my dryer on back-to-back 70-minute cycles in order to dry saturated clothes. Energy savings indeed! Just like the government-mandated, low-flow toilets where the flow is so low that they don't move molehills, let alone mountains.

Well, my washing machine broke again two weeks ago, and if I could lift it like I can lift a laptop, I’m sure I would have hurled it across the basement. Eventually, the machine started working again when I fussed with it a bit, and that lasted a couple of washes while I held my breath waiting for the machine to spite me once and for all. So indeed, it broke again last week, and it took forever for me to get the lid lock to unlock (!) so I could get my clothes out and take them to the laundromat. I had to invent a hatful of magician’s tricks just to get the jaws open to get at my clothes. Then it brazenly hissed at me, followed by the beeping and flashing of numbers and letters in the display in an obsessive-compulsive rage. What a useless piece of crap.

For the most part, we shall not put the blame the manufacturer – instead, blame the government and the politicization of every aspect of our lives. Here’s another passage from the writer of the article.

The government assumes that all high-efficiency, high-speed-spin washer owners – regardless of brand/model - are satisfied with the cleanliness of their clothes and aren't fudging with extra wash or rinse cycles, nor using more hot water in order to increase cleaning power (or to reduce widely-reported high-efficiency front-load washer odors). For those of you who don't precisely match the assumptions in the government model (washing mostly in cold water, using an indoor/outdoor clothesline or drying rack, using a high efficiency solar water heater or heat pump, or washing fewer than eight family-size loads of laundry per week), don’t count on saving much money before you pay to replace that washer again!

I’m tired of being without a washer and waiting for a Saturday repair appointment or taking time off during the week to meet the repairman. And while I wait for the appointment, I drag my clothes to the laundromat, burning $4/gallon petroleum to get there and back, and when I get there I use age-old, 1980s-style, "inefficient" machines to waste the water I was supposedly saving with my new machine that wastes energy, time, money, parts, landfill space, and human energy.

The Sears repairman came by, and I noted he loves to talk. He cornered me in the kitchen with a long conversation following his news, "Sorry, I don’t carry the part you need. It’s going to be several days before we can get the part." I asked him why these newer things were such pieces of crapola, hoping to engage him in one of my dissident discussions.

This man needed no impetus from me – he went on and on about how the government has created these malfunctioning monstrosities, why he will never buy a modern washing machine, and why everyone should look for the more reliable fix-up relics from the past. He fessed up that everyone in the industry – manufacturers, retailers, repairmen, etc. – know that these government-inefficient contraptions are no good, and the challenges of high-efficiency design means they can never be built to last without triggering significant cost increases to the consumer. Thus, in order to manufacture and sell washing appliances at an affordable price, the producers are squeezed to design and build malfunctioning junk that "saves the planet" while the consumers of these products are saddled with green-induced landfill paraphernalia.

In summary, the government’s green totalitarianism has created a massive economic inefficiency with its energy-and-money-wasting, "high efficiency" washing machines.

On a macro level, there exists a diversion of resources due to manufacturers rushing to meet government "voluntary compliance" standards and mandates. Manufacturers are forced to rush shoddy designs to market to meet mandates instead of strategically directing long-term resources toward research and design implementation as desired by consumers in the marketplace.

Wasted energy resources through repeated cycles (spin, wash, extra drying, or otherwise) on the part of users to maintain previous standards for the cleanliness, dryness, and wrinkle effect of clothes.

Increased maintenance and repair cost to consumers over the life of the machine due to the mandates forcing manufacturers to implement substandard product design.

Economic inefficiency to consumers due to the shorter life span of the machine.

Huge landfill graveyards of non-repairable machines that are discarded because they are too costly to be fixed.

When my warranty runs out in 2014, this puppy is going on Craigslist as a "cheap, damaged good," and if that doesn't get any takers, out to the curb she goes, for the garbage pickers. I'll buy a used, old-fashioned, ugly, water-hogging, rebuilt, grandma washer, as sold by many local fellas who make a living fixing up and selling used appliances. Until then, I'll keep washing my rugs and keep breaking this thing, and Sears will keep fixing it, on their dime.

Thanks for the article. Everybody working in the clean tech sector hopes that brakes on clean tech build out in the U.S.

Germany is a bit ahead on that on all scores. I was "ljucky" enough to just register a patent with the German patent office which boosts the efficiency of ordinary silicon solar from an average of 15% to 45%. in a very cost effective manner which also makes rooftop solar installations impervious to hairstorm damage.

As for DannyB. Good to have "contrarians" on board, Danny. Please take a look at the little Siemens thing on Wind Energy. They not only sponsor this site, they are one of the world´s leading companies in wind, concentrated solar, solar p.v. solar heat systems. Then there are building energy management systems, industrial power management systems and a bund of other neat things which cut fossil fuel consumption while increasing output. And every installed measure cuts consumption, increases output, and means that magic word in capitalism: MARGIN!

As for R & D. The company lives from innovative ideas, and turning those innovative ideas of its employees into manufactured and installed reality by investing a lot in R & D. - billions every year which result in over 5000 new global patents being recognized around the world every year.

The company currently owns about 45.000 non-expired patents which are the base of their production. And they also earn from patent license fees to other companies. Well founded research and development programs are never a waste of money as you claim.

We are just in the first parts of a 21st century "energy transition". And thanks to research and deveopment, all kinds of wonderful energy solutions will be coming out on the market which cut greenhouse gas emissions by cutting consumption via energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. Read this site, readHuffington Post Green, and read "Think Progress Green" Billy and you might realize how fast that energy transition is accellerating, and how you can also personally profit from it.

Well Kent, maybe I missed it in your duplicated excess below, but I didn't see any description of your new idea to get 45% efficiency from silicon in a durable rooftop structure.

As for the other skimmed blather, 30+ years ago I was doing my Ph.D. research on proton exchange kinetics at pressures over 100,000 psi in a department headed by the inventor of digital electronics. When I combined solid state physics with biochemistry it began serious discussion of water as a semiconductor and nanotechnology. By the time academics figured that stuff out I was pushing the internet using address multiplexing to (bio)mimic neural communications. The academics later joined that, too. Hands on energy related development.

While later dealing with a (West)German and Japanese company on computer automated chemiluminescent immunoassays (during AIDS concerns) I pushed the mass produced "recycled plastic livestock septic tanks", and cellulosic biofuels from hay crops that puts carbon in the soil (1987). Both seem to interest you now. As well, I'm glad you have some general awareness of the infrared fuel cell concept. Perhaps I missed your awareness of storing solar energy in high temperature biomass biofuel processing.

I learned that when government floats $100million subsidies and grants around, it can get very dangerous for people creating new science. So people like you that chat about what other people are doing miss the very real fear factor. I never got anything but friendship and protection from Republicans. And never got even a friendly hello from Democrats. I have no reason to lie about this, I'm trying to save my butt. Keep the free money out of it to protect innovation is the lesson of experience.

So how about you just stick with reporting the RE news from Germany. I'm glad to hear so much progress in directions I've pushed, particularly agriculture where I'm now involved. And please leave your ill-founded opinions of US politics out of it.

Finally, I must say it is satisfying to see the Scandinavians push a wide list of UN climate sustainability goals and the Germans developing a diverse RE technology market. It will be interesting to see Chinese developments. I wish the US was a player, but this administration just won't allow innovation to compete with giving away money.

Dear Rick: I happened to have served thre years RA during Nam, am a registered U:s EX-PAT voter, and did vote straight Democratic. As for recycled plastic bio digesters..Austrian Monks were the first to implement bio-digesters in the 50s - feeding ICE engines driving generators. Paddle digesters, and recycled plastic body digesters were around in Europe before you. I know the scene quite well thank you.

As or revealing our state of the art- method of boosting- solar output on any standard silicon solar cell up to a max of 43.9% efficiency, you will hve to wait until the marketing premier at the Munich Intersolar trade fair this coming June. I hold a 3rd of the patent- the other patent holder- also a Phd in physics- was the chief Research and Development Officer at Messerschmidt - Bölkow-Blöhm Aerospace (MBB now a part of EADS making things like the Eurofighter.) The other partner is a full Prof of Physics at the German Ivy League. Don´t toot your own horn too loudly around other Phd Mensas.

Now,, I certainly hope you have taken the time to patent your "infra-red fuel cell", because after our little discussion here, everybody knows about your good idea- and just how it works. Congratulations, I do think it is a good idea worth pursuing, and which could make you money if it is efficient in energy recapture as it sounds. Actually, when thinking about it, i got one of thos "jealous moments"- like

"it is so f-working simple, and so f-working obvious- now why didn´t I think of that first? I hope you´ve got that patent applied for because the Chinese also read this site. Aha, it is a brilliant form of turbo-thermo-coupling. Say a methane manure recapture system- burns methane on a fuel cell- for power.- if I understand your deivce correctly - you simply put a second charged fuel cell on the hot exhaust gas flue- which is charged... and that works as a turbo- thermo coupling device. What I like about your idea is that if you configure it right, you can bust up the NoX and the Co² right as the hot flue gas goes out the chimney. Think the "Q.E.D. on that through. Think the configuration through, also calculating all the drag coefficients in as well.

I mean, with the proper configuration in smoke stack- you can literally not just capture the carbon dioxide and Nox - you can literally break it up using the flue gas heat to charge the fuel cell configuration in the system.and carbon out one line with the carbon captured and fed on to Fisher Tropsch refining systems. (fancy that a "burn twice technology - with every cubic meter of incineration waste producing 250 liters of diesel, gasoline, or aviation kerosene.)

So, I have a habit of going to patent offices as soon as somebody inspries me, and I spin off something on top of it, and we share the patents. You had the idea of putting a fuel cell in a GaS- exhaust smoke stack- to boost power, and I had the idea of a different configuration on it- to do electrocatalytic carbon capture - breakdown- Nox capture breakdown. All immediately registered and recognized I.P. on both our parts by appearing right here in- Energy Collective. (c)(I.P) Nov. 2012 Kent Otho Doering.

it will be in the German patent office by next week. Done. For more details, call long distance information and ask the operator for my number in Munich. (and do consider the time differences. I hate being waken up in the middle of the night.

Carbon Capture Breakdown is so f-working simple. Thanks for the tip. You get part of the patent fees even though we might and most likely detest each other. Irrelevant. it is necessary for reducing global warming.

Kent, as a renewable energy scientist for longer than you, I, like many other Americans, have had enough of this insulting arrogance being expressed.

Submit your patents and please share your insights so we can grow our economies securely, sustainably. But it never, ever gets that far. Always a vague minimal reference to some new wonder technology, expanded into some insulting lecture, concluding in a sales pitch for some political agenda and taxes.

I am aware of Siemens. IIRC they were the only other fiber optic company listed in the business yellow pages; listed under Siecore I believe (long time ago). And I know optics and semiconductors, so I can handle your new idea. This blog site Siemens sponsors would benefit.

As for the election, it seems hungry populous states (some waiting in gas lines without electricity in the cold) in deep financial debt all went for Obama. We all don't aspire to be like California and New York. And we get tired of providing for them while being told how evil we are. My simple solution is they should buy elsewhere, then. Paying them money to buy our labors and then getting insulted isn't going to work anymore. They don't make much stuff we buy anyway. I really don't know what most of those people do anymore except make policies for others.

Solar biofuels and infrared fuel cells is my game. And I won't ask the government to force people to pay for it. Go ahead patent it if you think you know science. Or show some rare courtesy and engage in a productive discussion.

Its nice to see scientists bickering but I wanted to point out that the results of the elecetion show that those states who receive more than one dollar back from the federal government than they pay in taxes almost all voted republican-so those states that supported Obama are in fact subsising those republican voting states who are so keen on cutting the size of government

Dear Mr. Engbretson: I`ve been around the "sustainability sector" for the past 37 years of my life. As for my patent, I merely took another patented form of soar and combined it with silicon based solar to boost efficiency. I know the inventor of that other form of solar, which is quite extensively used in the mid-east.

I ws not being arrogant. I merely was saying that energy efficiency and renewable energy measures go hand in hand. I was also stating that yes, sometimes govrenment programs for supporting energy, like a mandated - feed in tarif for the build out of solar and wind - like the Germa´s have works for getting off of fossil fuel dependency. It pays off in the form of reduced power consumption.

As for Siemens. It competes with General Electric, Philipps, ABB, and operates in 160 countries around the world bringing energy efficiency and renwable energy solutions to the market. (Westinghouse U.S.A. is also part of the Siemens group in some areas.!) It has been in the electrical business for 164 years and I do believe they know a little about power. And they do drop a bundle every year in research and develpment to make things ever more efficient in energy use. The concept is called "sustainability". Increase performance, cut consumption for customer benefit.

As someone very familiar with physics and electrical engineering, I wonder what you mean by an infra-red "fuel cell". Infrared is the light frequency which carries heat. If you are talking about converting the low frequency infrared to power , then that is not a fuel cell, but rather something the power industry calls "Thermo coupling". which captures the electron wave function of infra-red, electro-weak photons associated with heat much in the same way that photo-voltaics captures the electron wave function of visible frequency optical photons.

Actually, all fuel cells that burn a gas are infrared fuel cells because the plates on the cells capture the infrared heat frequency. can also be considered as a "thermo coupling device" as well. They are very efficient in thermojoule to power conversion, and still yield a lot of heat that can be used in other processes.

The Buderous GmbH in Northrhein Wesphalia, Germany, holds the global patents on combining fuel cells with furnace heat and hot water systems. (They patented that about 12 years ago if memory holds me correctly. And now that system is being extensively built out in Germany as it is one form of"blockhouse" coupled co-generative CHP, combined heat power systems mandated by German law in all new buildings.

The fuel cell business is booming in Europe like solar or wind. For example, with the new Eco Tax As Liuid Leveraged Equity Program- - European farmers will get very low interest loans- of less than 1% p.a. to install and operate manure methane fueled Combined Heat Power systens on their farms. Some use ICE. systems,but fuel cells are much more efficient.

When all 200.000 German farms build out to that by 2025- the power output - from manure methane alone will be 40 GW, or 40.000 MW, or 40.000.000 KW - average output per farm- 200 KW. 24/7, and the average farmere will make more money generating power from manure methane than they do off growing crops and keeping livestock.

You claim to be in the "sustainability business". Then you must know that anthropogenic methane emissions have a greenhouse global warming warming effect 25 times higher than co². Therefore the common sense solution is to capture it and use it as fuel in combined heat and power systems for maximum efficiency.

The three main emitters of "anthropgenic methane" are sewage sludge, garbage dumps, and agriculture. That is why all 27 countries in the European Union are building out sewage sludge methne recapture- and firing- in big waste incineration plants- for power and long distance heat systems for heat and hot water. (That saves on both coal and heating oil.) and agrarian methane systems.

With optimizing systems... urban waste systems generate about 500 megawatts per 1.5 million inhabitants. And the manure methane xsystems on a pan European basis will be putting out close to 500 per 1 million inabitants. hard to beleive, but it is true.

optimized, we can get close to 1 kw per person by 2025 in the EEC.while eliminating most methane greenhouse gas emissoins.

___________________

Goodness, Sandy blew away a lot of wooden houses along the coast. And German´s have a technology to cost effectively replace them with insulated, steel reinforced cast concrete bjuildings that can stand up to the waves, and don´t burn down so quickly if a gas line breaks. It only costs about $100 U.S.D. per square meter to erect, and cuts construction time and labour costs by 50 % making it cheaper than wood frame homes. It is a result of the German mandate that all new buildings have good insulation.

So the solution for that was to simply make a "lost mould" insulation system. Again, patented and being marketed around the world- in one of the fastest growing businesses I have ever seen in my life.

The system is called Thermodul. Check it out on Google. It reduces heat and air conditioning energy needs by 90%. (And considering that heat, hot water, and air condtioning consume 40% of the northern hemispheric energy needs, that system on new buildings is nothing to sneeze at. Combine that, with mandated shallow geothermic heat pump systems for heat hot watere, and solar heat..as mandated by German law, and you reduce those energy needs by a total of 95%.

If you claim to be a "sustainability engineer", you might appreciate those figures.

We hav a saying. If you want what we´ve got. You have to do what we are doing to get it.

Dear Mr. Engbretson: I`ve been around the "sustainability sector" for the past 37 years of my life. As for my patent, I merely took another patented form of soar and combined it with silicon based solar to boost efficiency. I know the inventor of that other form of solar, which is quite extensively used in the mid-east.

I ws not being arrogant. I merely was saying that energy efficiency and renewable energy measures go hand in hand. I was also stating that yes, sometimes govrenment programs for supporting energy, like a mandated - feed in tarif for the build out of solar and wind - like the Germa´s have works for getting off of fossil fuel dependency. It pays off in the form of reduced power consumption.

As for Siemens. It competes with General Electric, Philipps, ABB, and operates in 160 countries around the world bringing energy efficiency and renwable energy solutions to the market. (Westinghouse U.S.A. is also part of the Siemens group in some areas.!) It has been in the electrical business for 164 years and I do believe they know a little about power. And they do drop a bundle every year in research and develpment to make things ever more efficient in energy use. The concept is called "sustainability". Increase performance, cut consumption for customer benefit.

As someone very familiar with physics and electrical engineering, I wonder what you mean by an infra-red "fuel cell". Infrared is the light frequency which carries heat. If you are talking about converting the low frequency infrared to power , then that is not a fuel cell, but rather something the power industry calls "Thermo coupling". which captures the electron wave function of infra-red, electro-weak photons associated with heat much in the same way that photo-voltaics captures the electron wave function of visible frequency optical photons.

Actually, all fuel cells that burn a gas are infrared fuel cells because the plates on the cells capture the infrared heat frequency. can also be considered as a "thermo coupling device" as well. They are very efficient in thermojoule to power conversion, and still yield a lot of heat that can be used in other processes.

The Buderous GmbH in Northrhein Wesphalia, Germany, holds the global patents on combining fuel cells with furnace heat and hot water systems. (They patented that about 12 years ago if memory holds me correctly. And now that system is being extensively built out in Germany as it is one form of"blockhouse" coupled co-generative CHP, combined heat power systems mandated by German law in all new buildings.

The fuel cell business is booming in Europe like solar or wind. For example, with the new Eco Tax As Liuid Leveraged Equity Program- - European farmers will get very low interest loans- of less than 1% p.a. to install and operate manure methane fueled Combined Heat Power systens on their farms. Some use ICE. systems,but fuel cells are much more efficient.

When all 200.000 German farms build out to that by 2025- the power output - from manure methane alone will be 40 GW, or 40.000 MW, or 40.000.000 KW - average output per farm- 200 KW. 24/7, and the average farmere will make more money generating power from manure methane than they do off growing crops and keeping livestock.

You claim to be in the "sustainability business". Then you must know that anthropogenic methane emissions have a greenhouse global warming warming effect 25 times higher than co². Therefore the common sense solution is to capture it and use it as fuel in combined heat and power systems for maximum efficiency.

The three main emitters of "anthropgenic methane" are sewage sludge, garbage dumps, and agriculture. That is why all 27 countries in the European Union are building out sewage sludge methne recapture- and firing- in big waste incineration plants- for power and long distance heat systems for heat and hot water. (That saves on both coal and heating oil.) and agrarian methane systems.

With optimizing systems... urban waste systems generate about 500 megawatts per 1.5 million inhabitants. And the manure methane xsystems on a pan European basis will be putting out close to 500 per 1 million inabitants. hard to beleive, but it is true.

optimized, we can get close to 1 kw per person by 2025 in the EEC.while eliminating most methane greenhouse gas emissoins.

___________________

Goodness, Sandy blew away a lot of wooden houses along the coast. And German´s have a technology to cost effectively replace them with insulated, steel reinforced cast concrete bjuildings that can stand up to the waves, and don´t burn down so quickly if a gas line breaks. It only costs about $100 U.S.D. per square meter to erect, and cuts construction time and labour costs by 50 % making it cheaper than wood frame homes. It is a result of the German mandate that all new buildings have good insulation.

So the solution for that was to simply make a "lost mould" insulation system. Again, patented and being marketed around the world- in one of the fastest growing businesses I have ever seen in my life.

The system is called Thermodul. Check it out on Google. It reduces heat and air conditioning energy needs by 90%. (And considering that heat, hot water, and air condtioning consume 40% of the northern hemispheric energy needs, that system on new buildings is nothing to sneeze at. Combine that, with mandated shallow geothermic heat pump systems for heat hot watere, and solar heat..as mandated by German law, and you reduce those energy needs by a total of 95%.

If you claim to be a "sustainability engineer", you might appreciate those figures.

We hav a saying. If you want what we´ve got. You have to do what we are doing to get it.

A win by 2.5% is not a mandate by any defintion. Clean energy is still mostly pie in the sky and billions of dollars wasted. Right now is the time to pursue what we can while we can. Keep research going but don't just throw money at cronies to do "R&D."

I wish to enlarge my remarks after hearing from Mr. Kent Otho Doering.

Mr. Doering, thanks for appreciating my being a contrarian. I have to admit, on most things these days, I am that...add to that an old fart who still thinks my qualitative education in economics plays a most valuable part in these discussions.

I called myself and environmentalist from my early teenage years in that wonderful decade of the 70's. ( i graduated in 1976). Saw the acid rain brought on by catalytic converters, the devastation to my pocketbook brought on by the gas wars, and all the ups and downs we have had since then. I have long ago given up that nominal label for one who believes in existing along with the environment and that humans are not the problem but the solution.

What I am concerned with is the unreasoning approach many in government have had toward addressing environmental concerns. I see the EPA that way. They see it as their duty to do away with coal fired plants. Yet coal may be our longest lasting source of clean energy till all the alternatives come on line.

These new standards are being foisted on the electorate by an unelected bureaucracy (albeit guided by an elected president) in what I regard as too fast a fashion. Why do I think so? One has only to look at one concept to bring to bear my critique: diminishing returns.

Let me explain. I grew up driving a 1972 gremlin. It supposedly spewed enormous amounts of pollution upon the environment. Yet as of 1995 pollution per mile per car stood at 1% of what my old gremlin did, with more mpg and more hp. Much the same applies to coal fired plants. In 1972 they were dirty, grimy, and produced horrible emissions. Today due to emission technology they stand as some of the cleanest on the face of the earth. Putting them all out to pasture this year will make bills escalate on the diminishing returns scale: exponentially while benefits diminish along the same scale only negatively.

I submit we need a smarter transition to wholly clean energy. Today we need to leave the cleanest coal plants alone and explore options along the lines of technology we know works: natural gas and nuclear. All the while this is happening we must allow the government to fund basic research that benefits us all not a few cronies of either political party.

Not only that, recognition needs to be made of the recession we live in. There are many in this economy that can’t afford the bill hikes after the tax hikes looming in the near future. Qualitative and quantitative economics speaks to this question also. Taxes come from depriving taxpayers of spendable income. If they don’t have the income to spend, the economy slows. In an economy where everyone is struggling this makes even less sense.

I salute all of you that are making a difference. But please realize a government mandate improvrishes us all. It interferes with market forces that will, I say, must come back and bite us in return. We need to be careful where we put government money.

Your absolutely right Aggie. So it's time for people to start writing/calling their representatives, regardless of party affiliation, to let them know that "we the people " now DEMAND that they support the sea change in energy product that is, from a survival standpoint, MANDATORY and not optional. It's our cookies at stake here and the issue outweighs all other's by a long shot.